The Delhi High Court set aside DGFT’s communication placing an importer in the “Denied Entity List” after finding violation of natural justice and Section 8 of the FTDR Act. The Court held that such action cannot be taken without proper notice and opportunity of hearing.
The Delhi High Court quashed PRC orders after finding that the exporter’s claim regarding non-transmission of Advance Authorization data to ICEGATE was not properly examined. The Court held that the authorities failed to consider material facts and repeated representations.
The Delhi ITAT restored the matter to the Assessing Officer after noting that the assessee had furnished certain records relating to the unsecured loan transaction. The Tribunal directed fresh examination of identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness under Section 68.
Selecting the incorrect ITR form may lead to defective returns, revision requirements, and tax notices. Taxpayers should verify the correct form based on income type before filing.
The Karnataka High Court quashed an appellate order dismissing a GST appeal on limitation grounds after finding that proper reasons for refusing condonation were not recorded. The matter was remitted for decision on merits.
The Bombay High Court held that consolidated GST show cause notices covering several financial years are not permitted under the CGST Act. The Court ruled that each financial year constitutes a separate tax period requiring independent assessment.
The Allahabad High Court held that dismissal of a GST appeal on limitation grounds was unsustainable where the ex parte adjudication order was not properly communicated. The matter was remitted for fresh adjudication on merits.
The High Court ruled that improper uploading of notices on the GST portal prevented the taxpayer from responding within limitation. Fresh proceedings were directed after issuing proper notice.
The government has notified the Principal Bench of GSTAT as the National Appellate Authority for resolving conflicting state advance rulings. The update streamlines dispute resolution under Section 101A with retrospective effect from 1 April 2026.
The Supreme Court examined whether the CCI could revisit a merger approval after allegations of incomplete disclosures regarding interconnected agreements and strategic rights. The case focused on disclosure obligations, merger review powers, and limits on regulatory action under the Competition Act.
